Comment: First, I never said it was

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Where do you see emotion in (see in situ)

First, I never said it was

First, I never said it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Martin started the altercation. That tells me that you didn't read my post fully, considering that I said "according to the testimony, if it's to be believed(paraphrased)."
Also, we have testimony stating that Martin was on top, pummeling him MMA style, as well as conflicting medical experts saying that Zimmerman would have/would not have been killed had he not shot Martin. As far as Zimmerman's own testimony, to his credit, his story hasn't changed, so I believe that is worth taking into consideration as well.

Furthermore, the burden of proof is not on the defense to show that Martin was or was not the instigator, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman shooting Martin was not in self defense. Can you say, beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman was not acting in self defense? Your answer will more than likely be a no.

I'll concede that saying "It's Zimmerman's fault for playing vigilante" (although it's emotionally-charged descriptive noun that the MSM has been overusing imo) may not be an emotional argument, but it's definitely a red herring considering that "who started it" is not what's on trial.

A woman is walking alone at night. She is being followed and feels threatened. She cuts through yards to get away. The stranger catches up, she turns around and pepper sprays him, and beings to defend her. The stalker shoots her and he cites self defense. Who is the guilty party?

Apples and Oranges. You're also making up a scenario that you don't know the details to. You don't know how fast Martin was running, what he cut through or any of that, so making a comparison with these details is inherently biased.

If we are looking at what happened, and not a race or past, it all boils down to one key fact; Zimmerman had no business playing vigilante. He should have just stayed on the phone with the cops. (that one overlooked fact)

I agree he shouldn't have gone out there (though I would hardly call it playing vigilante, you're jumping to conclusions) and definitely should have identified himself, but there is the very real possibility that Martin attacked him. As long as there is even that small amount of reasonable doubt, he should not be convicted.

Innocent until proven guilty.

If you feel that the above is a misrepresentation of your postings, let me know. I make it a point to try and be level-headed and logical.